Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
A reductio ad absurdum about investigations of the POTUS.
Imagine there's a POTUS who has substantial support of his/her party but who is suspected of committing nefarious acts. A special counsel is appointed who then investigates and finds that there is evidence proving, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond any shadow of a doubt that this hypothetical POTUS has murdered several children by his own hand. According to Justice Department guidelines, results of investigations that do not produce indictments are not released -- but guidelines also say the POTUS can't be indicted for anything.
The report is not released. In the absence of hard evidence, the POTUS's party continues to support him/her and impeachment doesn't happen.
Does this make any sense?
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
